Project identification & naming

James Berry jberry at
Sun Apr 29 15:55:00 PDT 2007

Hi Juan,

On Apr 28, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:

> 	Evening everyone!
> 	Working on my dp2mp-move branch just now I came up with some  
> questions regarding our naming as a project, as there are still  
> some references to darwinports, opendarwin and, eeehhhmmm, Apple in  
> key parts of our sources, and I'm not too sure what we should do.
> 	My biggest question is with respect to the "<target>"  
> naming we still use to identify each of the installation stages:  
> can we move that to something more consistent like  
> "org.macports.<stage>"? Note that I didn't ask "should we" just  
> there, simply because a full migration to the new name is the very  
> objective of the branch, so that's a given. I'm asking: can we? are  
> there any legal ramifications of any sort if we do, given that it  
> was Apple who first started the project? Please bear with me if  
> these seem like silly questions, not only am I not a lawyer but  
> also I don't live in the US, so I'm not at all acquainted with  
> pertinent legal procedures, if any. Any other roadblocks to moving  
> that to our own naming? (other than bugs that will arise, which  
> I'll look after as I work on the branch).

There should be no repercussions, legal or otherwise, to changing  
these names. That's all they are, unique strings. There are no legal  
implications. Changing them might make things less confusing for  
people, as others have mentioned.

> 	On the same tune, I'm also wondering about our identification: can  
> we call ourselves a "working group"? a "vendor"? a "distributor"?  
> none? all? For an example of what I'm referring to, check out the  
> differences between the base/src/package1.0/portrpmpackage.tcl file  
> in trunk and in the dp2mp-move branch:

I believe we are a vendor for the purposes used here. Again, it  
doesn't really matter.

> trunk:
> (Line No. 159)%define distribution DarwinPorts
> (Line No. 160)%define vendor OpenDarwin
> branch:
> (Line No. 159)%define distribution MacPorts
> (Line No. 160)%define vendor MacPorts
> 	It would be good to get a clear definition of what we are and  
> aren't, in order to call ourselves consistently. As another  
> example, our base/portmgr/License.html file (shipped with our  
> dmg's) claims in its header (per my own not too educated addition  
> of our name):
> Copyright (c) 2002 - 2003 Apple Computer, Inc.
> Copyright (c) 2004 - 2007 MacPorts
> All rights reserved.

This is as good as it gets today, and demonstrates an intent. Whether  
or not we can copyright something, as an informal group, is beyond  
me, but it doesn't hurt to try. We may incorporate as a non-profit  
corporation in order to receive money from google for GSoC, so this  
might change a bit over time.

> 	Is that correct? incorrect? incomplete? Putting that same  
> (corrected) info in our front web page would also be a good idea,  
> I'm figuring (other than the incredible number of cleanups it  
> needs, I think that's an important one).
> 	Thanks for the help! Regards,...


More information about the macports-dev mailing list